You perceive that because you either pretend to be ignorant of any facts that are not spinning wildly to the left, or you honestly cannot perceive the same.
Whatever.
Not one of your more brilliant responses. It is however predictable. You clearly disregard opinions and news sources that are not biased liberal. You prove this later in this discussion.
But Ted, you voted for a candidate who admitted to doing the worst that is alleged of this your man. Perhaps the Marine should be the Democrat candidate for President, and then all would be well.
And he said it was wrong.
Please show me where Kerry said that his act of murdering a wounded Vietnamese was wrong. All I ever noticed was the Kerry camp and their FMSM allies attacking those who brought the incident to light.
For me, ethics and morality are not a part time thing....or just for this country. And I don't give a damn what the Iraqis or anyone else does.........I believe we should be held to a higher standard.
Your statements have given me an impression that is not easily reconciled with the fist part of that statement. We should be, as should all first world people, held to a higher standard. That means when the Administrator of the UN Oil for Terrorism scandal is on the take, it is a bad thing. It means when France, Germany, Russia, and China form the coalition of the coerced and the bribed, it is disgraceful.
aina.org
Show me where I said the Oil for food corruption was okay? You're starting to make things up as you go along.
Response found in your first statement. "or what anyone else does".
That's one test........and if I remember correctly, their scores were equivalent. In any case, do you evaluate a person's intellect based on one report? I don't....I base it a number of interactions and the person's behavior in a variety of scenarios.
Equivalent does not reconcile with Intellectually, Kerry ... could run circles around Mr. Bush. If your are smarter than me, does it follow that I could intellectually run circles around you? You might be able to say they are essentially the same, but not that Kerry is smarter than the President. Spin debunked!
The above paragraph makes little sense.
That is because I used your logic to construct a similarly rediculous argument.
The only news channel that has such a definitive bias is Fox News.
That is an obviously innacurate statement. No discussion of value can be made on falsehoods.
But for the sake of arguement. The five liberal FMSM all endorsed and supported Kerry. He lost the popular vote. Proof of bias. Fox did not endorse either; the election was close; proof of lack of bias.
Link please.
Just follow the discussion back. This time read the posts.
For the sake of making it easy to find: Hundreds of Veterans in a position to know have charged Kerry with being unfit for command. A few supported Kerry. Investors play the odds. You may prefer gambling to investing.
As for the rally since the election.......well of course......the DOW took a huge dip just before the election due to election uncertainties.........where have you been? The business press went on and on about that phenomenon. Was the election going to be thrown into the courts bla bla bla! The markets did nothing for weeks.
And FYI, you need to get up to date on which party is better for the markets. The markets since 1927 have done better under the Dems. I know you won't believe it because its the mainstream press but get over it:
Surprise: Dems are better for rallies
Despite 'market friendly' Republican policies, stocks rise more and volatility dips under Democrats.
Well Duh. Honest people don't expect a a blatantly biased liberal source like cnn to tell the truth when it is not politically expedient. Thanks for the laugh.
BTW 1927 is a polically biased choice of dates. Please excercise you mind. Don't just read biased articles and believe what they say.
If you actually examine the charts I posted you will see that my previous statements remain accurate. The effect of a Presidential election on the stock market is obvious. If you were an investor you would know that the market factors all available information almost immediately. When it looked like President Bush might not get reelected, the market tanked. As it did prior to the elections of 1992 and 1996 when the liar was elected. Obviously your favored liberally spun sources select the non relevant dates of swearing in. By then, the information that a Democrat or Republican has already been priced into the market. As far as the performance during the recession caused by Clinton and the recession caused by 9/11, do you honestly think Al Gore could have done better? |
